More lies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

[Fairportfan]

For years, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (sponsored by for-profit insurance companies) has been manipulating statistics and outright lying to us to sell things we either don't need (continuance of the 55-mph national speed limit*) or would be better off without, if more people actually acted in their own best interests (airbags).

Like other Naderite organisations, they get caught and called out on their propaganda regularly by the automotive press ... and their response is "Well, you know those people, they're all crazy, anyway. The actually want to be able to drive fast and enjoy driving."

Well, they're at it again:

IIHS still claiming red light cameras make us safer despite evidence to the contrary

Whether by manipulating statistics or the language of the reports, many organizations keep finding ways to avoid saying traffic cameras don't actually make us any safer at intersections.

For opponents of traffic cameras, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety must surely be their worst enemy. The IIHS has already released a number of rather dubious reports as to the effectiveness of red light cameras, including community support for the technology. Perhaps the most blatant bit of devilry, however, occurred when the IIHS tweaked the definition of what constitutes an accident at an intersection. Under the new definition, only incidents that occur between the crosswalks are considered. We're not entirely sure why the IIHS made this move. Our most logical guess is that it was done in an effort to provide empirical data backing up traffic camera technology. By counting only the accidents that occur between crosswalks, the IIHS found an effective way to omit rear-end collisions at red lights, thus showing a perceived reduction in accidents. Alterntively, more complete reports have often shown that a reduction in accidents between the crosswalks was counterbalanced by an increase in rear-end accidents as a result of panic braking. {emphasis added}

The IIHS' latest study follows the usual rhetoric that claims red light cameras are working great. Truthfully, this was not even an especially far-reaching study. In fact, it only followed four busy intersections, all of them in Arlington, Virginia, according to a report in The Car Connection. It still might seem odd that the IIHS reached the conclusion that it did, since the Virginia Transportation Research Council had previously released a study which found that red light cameras actually led to an increase in accidents. But the IIHS' explanation here was simply a further skewing of statistics. The IIHS report actually said that red light cameras reduce the number of red light violations, and carefully avoided actually saying they reduced accidents.

The motivation for the IIHS report is seemingly simple. It represents the insurance industry, a group that profits from red light camera tickets as a pretext to increase rates. But this is really just one in a long series of reports regarding traffic cameras which makes the assumption that nobody is going to be looking at the results too closely. So we ask you, do you think traffic cameras compel you to drive more carefully and serve a real safety function, or is it just a ploy for insurance companies to exploit motorists?

========================

* The IIHS quoted statistics showing a huge drop in traffic fatalities in the first years of the 55. What they ignored was that that drop appeared across the board - including on roads that were not affected by the 55. What they ignored was that those years were the original energy crisis years ... and everyone's driving habits changed Also, as i recall, they quoted numbers of fatalities instead of fatalities-per-100,000-miles, the true metric.

[Julie]

I honestly didn't know that red light cameras had caused any collisions. There are some in my area, and I will admit that I am less likely to gun it through an intersection on a yellow if I know that there is a camera that will catch me (heck, I gunned it through at least three intersections on my drive in to work this morning...and I probably was in the intersection when the light turned red for at least two of them). I definitely don't "panic brake" at those intersections with cameras, because I know the camera is there, so as I approach I'm prepared to stop if need be (foot lifting off the accelerator until I actually cross the "I can't stop from here" threshold). Is the panic braking a result of "Oh crap! I might get caught if I run this light!" or is it due to "Oh crap! What was that flash?!" Or is that even addressed? (No, I'm not visiting the links in your article...don't have time this morning to read a lot of stuff.)

[scantrontb]

yeah, unfortunately these are the same people that at a "turn right on red after a complete stop and yield to u-turns" corner will sit there for 5 minutes until the light turns green before turning. and they are also the same people that when merging onto the highway will stay at the 10 mph they were doing on the surface street prior to the turn, all the way up the lane until they are COMPLETELY ON THE FREEWAY... THEN!! and only then, will they will START to accelerate up to 5mph BELOW the limit... also just because YOU don't panic brake doesn't mean that someone ELSE won't either... I always remember Starman... "Red means Stop, Green means GO, and Yellow means Go Very Very Fast"... i always loved that line.

[Fairportfan]

[quote="scantrontb"]yeah, unfortunately these are the same people that at a "turn right on red after a complete stop and yield to u-turns" corner will sit there for 5 minutes until the light turns green before turning/quote]
Depending on the traffic and the corner, i do that.

"Right on red" is permitted; not mandatory.

[scantrontb]

Depending on the traffic and the corner, i do that.

"Right on red" is permitted; not mandatory.

ok, i guess i should have quantified my original statement by the "and there is no traffic" addon, but otherwise i agree that it's not mandatory, no argument there, but if a cop is behind on his ticket quota for the month, you know that you can get a ticket for "obstructing traffic" if more than four cars are lined up behind you (because they can't pass you by) and there is no reason for you to still BE stopped? i know because one of my friends GOT one of those...